Survey research in podiatric medicine: An analysis of the reporting of response rates and non-response bias

Systematic Review Assessing Quality of the Survey Literature in Surgery

INTRODUCTION

The use of survey methodology in surgical research has proliferated in recent years, but the quality of these surveys and of their reporting is understudied.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive review of surgical survey literature (January 2022-July 2023) via PubMed in July 2023. Articles which (1) reported data gleaned from a survey, (2) were published in an English language journal, (3) targeted survey respondents in the United States or Canada, and (4) pertained to general surgery specialties were included. We assessed quality of survey reports using the Checklist for Reporting Of Survey Studies (CROSS) guidelines. Articles were evaluated for concordance with CROSS using a dichotomous (yes or no) scale.

RESULTS

Initial literature search yielded 481 articles; 57 articles were included in analysis based on the inclusion criteria. The mean response rate was 37% (range 0.62%-98%). The majority of surveys were administered electronically (n = 50, 87.8%). No publications adhered to all 40 CROSS items; on average, publications met 61.2% of items applicable to that study. Articles were most likely to adhere to reporting criteria for title and abstract (mean adherence 99.1%), introduction (99.1%), and discussion (92.4%). Articles were least adherent to items related to methodology (42.6%) and moderately adherent to items related to results (76.6%). Only five articles cited CROSS guidelines or another standardized survey reporting tool (10.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis demonstrates that CROSS reporting guidelines for survey research have not been adopted widely. Surveys reported in surgical literature may be of variable quality. Increased adherence to guidelines could improve development and dissemination of surveys done by surgeons.

Workplace violence in medical radiation science: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

According to World Health Organization (WHO), workplace violence (WPV) is a significant issue in healthcare. However, no systematic review on WPV in medical radiation science (MRS) has been published yet. The purpose of this paper is to systematically review prevalence of WPV in MRS and its risk factors.

METHODS

Electronic scholarly publication databases, namely EBSCOhost/Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature Ultimate, PubMed/Medline, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Wiley Online Library were used for literature search to identify articles about WPV in MRS published over last 10 years as per preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. To facilitate comparisons of the WPV prevalence and relative importance of individual risk factors across the included studies, their reported absolute figures of findings were used to synthesize respective percentages (if not stated).

RESULTS

Twelve papers met the selection criteria and were included. This review shows that the WPV prevalence were 69.2-100 % (whole career) and 46.1-83.0 % (last 12 months) in diagnostic radiography, 63.0-84.0 % (whole career) in radiation therapy, 57.6 % in medical sonography (last 12 months), and 46.8 % (last 6 months) in nuclear medicine. The identified WPV risk factors included intoxicated patients, staff stress, feeling of inadequacy resulting in self-protection, more vulnerable practitioners (female, <40 years old and <5-year experience), working in radiation therapy treatment room, emergency department, examination room, general radiography, public hospital, and non-examination and waiting areas, long patient waiting time, night shift, overcrowding environment, unable to meet patients'/family members' expectations, miscommunication, patient handling, inadequate staff and security measures, interaction with colleagues, and lone working.

CONCLUSION

The WPV risk in diagnostic radiography and radiation therapy appears extremely high as a result of the aforementioned risk factors. Nevertheless, these study findings should be used with caution due to potential non-response bias.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

A WPV policy should be developed in every clinical workplace. Even if such policy is available, its enforcement including policy awareness boosting, and encouraging incident reporting and support seeking will be essential for reducing WPV. More survey studies based on WHO WPV questionnaire should be conducted for strengthening evidence base.

Quality indicators in burn care: An international burn care professionals survey to define them

INTRODUCTION

Quality indicators (QIs) are tools for improving and maintaining the standard of care. Although burn injuries are a major global health threat, requiring standardized management, there is a lack of worldwide accepted quality indicators for burn care. This study aims to identify the best burn care-specific QIs as perceived by worldwide burn practitioners.

METHODS

The ISBI Burn Care Committee developed a survey to analyze which burn care- specific QIs were relevant to international burn care professionals. The questionnaire was based on the three dimensions of the Donabedian model (i.e., Structure, Process, and Outcome) to evaluate the quality of care. The study was conducted from April to September 2021 and analyzed and reported following the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES).

RESULTS

According to the 124 worldwide respondents, the most relevant QIs were: access to intensive care, burn surgeons, and dedicated burn care nurses (Structure category), 24-hours access to burn services, local protocols based on documented guidelines (Process category), and in-hospital mortality and incidence of severe infections (Outcome category).

CONCLUSIONS

Specific QIs related to structures, clinical processes, and outcomes are needed to monitor the treatment of burn patients globally, assess the efficiency of the provided treatment, and harmonize the worldwide standard of burn care.

The relationship between coping and distress among faculty members and students during COVID-19 pandemic lockdown: The moderating effect of gender

OBJECTIVES

Previous research has documented significant associations between the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, various mental health problems, and coping strategies. However, literature on the moderating role of gender on the relationship between distress and coping strategies during COVID-19 is almost nonexistent. Hence, the main objective of this study was two folds. To examine gender differences in distress and coping strategies, and to test the moderating effect of gender on the relationship between distress and coping among university faculty members and students during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHOD

A cross-sectional web-based study design was used to collect data from the participants. A sample of 649 participants (68.9% university students and 31.1% faculty members) was selected. The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) and the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS) were used to collect data from the participants. The survey was sent out during the COVID-19 lockdown from May 12th to June 30th, 2020.

RESULTS

The results showed significant gender differences in distress and the three coping strategies. Women consistently scored higher on distress (p < 0.01), task-focused (p < 0.05), emotion-focused (p < 0.001), and avoidance coping (p < 0.01) compared to men. Gender moderated the relationship between emotion-focused coping and distress (p < 0.001) but not the relationship between distress and task-focused or avoidance coping.

CONCLUSION

Increased emotion-focused coping is associated with decreased distress among women while the use of emotion-focused coping by men predicted more distress. Workshops and programs focused on providing skills and techniques on how to cope with stressful situations induced by the COVID-19 pandemic are recommended.

The Relative Merits of Observational and Experimental Research: Four Key Principles for Optimising Observational Research Designs

The main barrier to the publication of observational research is a perceived inferiority to randomised designs with regard to the reliability of their conclusions. This commentary addresses this issue and makes a set of recommendations. It analyses the issue of research reliability in detail and fully describes the three sources of research unreliability (certainty, risk and uncertainty). Two of these (certainty and uncertainty) are not adequately addressed in most research texts. It establishes that randomised designs are vulnerable as observation studies to these two sources of unreliability, and are therefore not automatically superior to observational research in all research situations. Two key principles for reducing research unreliability are taken from R.A. Fisher’s early work on agricultural research. These principles and their application are described in detail. The principles are then developed into four key principles that observational researchers should follow when they are designing observational research exercises in nutrition. It notes that there is an optimal sample size for any particular research exercise that should not be exceeded. It concludes that best practice in observational research is to replicate this optimal sized observational exercise multiple times in order to establish reliability and credibility.

Quality of Patient-Reported Outcome Studies Utilizing the BREAST-Q: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) studies are essential in the assessment of surgical procedures in plastic surgery. One accepted and validated questionnaire is the BREAST-Q.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the quality of PRO studies in plastic surgery utilizing the BREAST-Q questionnaire.

METHODS

This study involved 2 steps: (1) a systematic review of 23 key criteria assessing the quality of survey research in studies utilizing the BREAST-Q that were published between 2015 and 2018; (2) a review of current guidance for survey research in journals related to plastic surgery and breast surgery which were included in the systematic review.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine studies were included in the systematic review. Many key criteria were poorly reported: 51.9% of the studies did not provide a defined response rate and almost 90% did not provide a method for analysis of nonresponse error; 67.1% lacked a description of the sample's representativeness of the population of interest, and 82.3% did not present a sample size calculation. The methods used to analyze data were not described in 11.4% of the papers; in 27.8% the data analysis presented could not allow replication of the results. Of the 16 journals in the fields of plastic surgery and breast surgery for which the "instructions to authors" were reviewed, 15 (93.7%) did not provide any guidance for survey reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of key criteria are underreported by authors publishing their survey research in peer-reviewed journals in the fields of plastic and breast surgery. There is an urgent need to construct well-developed reporting guidelines for survey research in plastic surgery, and particularly in breast surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on University Faculty, Staff, and Students and Coping Strategies Used During the Lockdown in the United Arab Emirates

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent lockdown instigated serious mental health conditions. So far, the UAE data on mental health problems due to this pandemic outbreak is still scarce. The objective of this study was to identify the prevalent psychological difficulties experienced by university students, faculty members, and staff during COVID-19 lockdown and the coping strategies used.

Methods: A cross-sectional design was used to collect data from 737 participants using an online electronic survey. Participants included students, faculty members, and staff from universities in the UAE. The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) was used to measure general distress, Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ-16) was used to measure worry, and the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS-48) was administered to measure coping strategies used by participants during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. Data were collected during May to June 2020.

Results: The results indicated that 60.4% of students, 57.4% of the faculty members, and 52.3% of the staff experienced mild psychiatric problems. About 32.9% of students, 33.7% of the faculty members, and 25% of the staff experienced high levels of worry during the COVID-19 lockdown. Changes in eating patterns, worsening chronic health problems, change in sleep patterns, and concentration difficulties were reported. Furthermore, significant differences were observed in worry and coping strategies among participants. Women use more avoidance and emotion-focused coping compared to men.

Conclusion: It was concluded that COVID-19 lockdown has negatively impacted university faculty, staff, and students in terms of health behavior, psychological and physical health.